Add a fully configured hair particle system to a Blender object, including children and physics, with adjustable count and length.
Template: Set up hair particles with children and physics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| length | No | ||
| object | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0+hardened.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It merely states the action without detailing side effects, requirements (e.g., object must be a mesh), whether it creates a new particle system or modifies an existing one, or what 'children' and 'physics' entail. This is severely under-specified for a tool that likely has significant side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and depth. While it doesn't waste words, it omits essential information, making it more under-specified than concise. The 'Template:' prefix adds minimal value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of setting up hair particles with children and physics, the description is wholly inadequate. With no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no details about return values or required preconditions, an agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly. Even with an output schema, the setup semantics remain opaque.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for count, length, or object. The agent has only the parameter names and defaults to infer their purpose, which is insufficient for a setup tool where these values likely affect particle distribution and behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (set up), the resource (hair particles), and specific features (children and physics). This distinguishes it from generic particle tools like add_particle_system, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings or explain the 'template' aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_particle_system, set_particle_property, or bake_particles. An agent must infer its purpose from the name and brief description, with no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.